Polygamy versus promiscuity

A recent article in Forbes compares Mormon polygamy to modern promiscuity.

"If Mitt Romney’s great-grandfather were Hugh Hefner, rather than Miles Park Romney, he’d have an easier time winning the Republican nomination and the White House. That’s something for voters to ponder, especially given the marital history of Romney’s chief rival, Newt Gingrich.

Hugh would be a more politically convenient forebear because Miles, unlike Hefner, was a Mormon who practiced polygamy (he had four wives). He fled to Mexico in 1885 after Utah acceded to the federal government’s demands and banned the practice.

Hefner, however, has only married his “bunnies” one at a time.  Sure, the playboy lives with up to half a dozen at a time, but mere promiscuity is easier for the public to forgive and isn’t a criminal offense in most states."

Then the columnist talks about who is harmed in society by polygamy and promiscuity.

"Polygamy is understood to often be harmful to women and children: Women, for example, are in many cases treated unequally, and children suffer from distant fathers. But the same is true in promiscuous relationships with several partners. In those cases the women and children are likely to be worse off than in polygamy, as the bond between the mother and father is weaker."

Did you see what just happened?  Just like the Canadian Supreme Court justice who recently ruled against polygamy, he neglects to mention that men are also harmed by polygamy: the "lost boys", i.e., low status men who can't find wives and are driven out of polygamist societies.  Here's what I wrote previously:

Says Chief Justice Robert Bauman:

“I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm,” Bauman wrote in the decision that was handed down Wednesday morning in Vancouver.

“More specifically, Parliament’s reasoned apprehension of harm arising out of the practice of polygamy. This includes harm to women, to children, to society and to the institution of monogamous marriage.”

...

I feel compelled to point out a glaring omission in the Chief Justice's statement of who gets harmed: men.  According to his own 335-page decision, there's quite a bit of evidence on how polygyny (one male, multiple females) creates "lost boys" who get driven out of polygynous societies because they can't find a wife and thus are a source of social instability.  So the Chief Justice really should have said: "This includes harm to women, to children, to men, to society, and to the institution of monogamous marriage."

Isn't it amazing how commentators, even well-informed ones, neglect the fact that many men are also harmed by this arrangement?

Now, let's go back to the Forbes piece, looking at the second half of the quote:

"Polygamy is understood to often be harmful to women and children: Women, for example, are in many cases treated unequally, and children suffer from distant fathers. But the same is true in promiscuous relationships with several partners. In those cases the women and children are likely to be worse off than in polygamy, as the bond between the mother and father is weaker."

Again, in the modern context, the focus is on women and children being harmed.  I don't disagree that modern promiscuity harms some women and some children.  But are there no men who are also harmed?

Let's continue to use Hugh Hefner as the example of modern promiscuity.

Most of the Playboy Bunnies are perfectly happy using Hef for his wealth, status, and connections.  Hef is perfectly happy using them for sex.  The high status male and attractive/promiscuous females seem fine with the arrangement (plus, they don't seem to be having many kids).  The people who are really harmed by a promiscuous sexual marketplace aren't invited to parties at the Playboy Mansion.

Good Girls

These are relatively chaste women who are undercut by promiscuous women.  Think of Good Girls as akin to the subset of women who chafe under polygamy and don't like what it has to offer, but are stuck living there.

Low Status Males

These are guys who don't have a source of status (confidence, money, intelligence, humor, skill, athleticism, health, etc.).  Low Status Males are akin to the lost boys in polygamous cultures -- demographically doomed to celibacy, adrift, dead to their own society.

So follow this logic:

• Hef monopolizes multiple women
• Fewer women in the sexual marketplace
• Men on the bottom of the totem pole get bumped, go celibate
• More celibate men buy Playboy
• Sales of Playboy go up
• Hef gets even richer
• Hef monopolizes more women

Rinse and repeat.  Continue ignoring low status men.  Hope the problem goes away.

For the econ majors out there, what is the optimal size of Hugh Hefner's harem to maximize sales of Playboy?  Assume that Hef has an infinite supply of time and Viagra.